“Domestic supply of infants”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?



That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?


You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.


That sounds like a societal failure. You don’t steal a woman’s child because she can’t feed it- you give her the d*mn food, you give her the d*mm treatment, and you make sure every one likes her gets fully educated.

The big one is an addicted or mentally ill mother. If a women just needs food and support financially, that is one thing. Addiction and mental health issues can only be solved with the will of the person who is afflicted. Many times people are not on board to solve these issues, even if they have a child. They will often neglect the child due to those issues. Ask me how I know. It's heartbreaking.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Only to create workers to support all the old people. Otherwise there is no reason, and in fact the earth’s population has exploded so much in the past century that it is not sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?



That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?


You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.


That sounds like a societal failure. You don’t steal a woman’s child because she can’t feed it- you give her the d*mn food, you give her the d*mm treatment, and you make sure every one likes her gets fully educated.

The big one is an addicted or mentally ill mother. If a women just needs food and support financially, that is one thing. Addiction and mental health issues can only be solved with the will of the person who is afflicted. Many times people are not on board to solve these issues, even if they have a child. They will often neglect the child due to those issues. Ask me how I know. It's heartbreaking.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

I am adopted because of a birth mother wirh paranoid schizophrenia. Her mom illness was not adequately managed sufficient to raise children and I can say that with certainty because I had an open adoption and still know her.

In my state, I (my birth parents) were given genetic medical history for both parents and it was known to me along with known to my birth siblings who were adopted to a separate family. Included info about relatives with diabetes and other medical conditions that could be inherited. But this may vary by state and what's available, known.

Of note, while schizophrenia can be hereditary with highest risk to an immediate descendent, but also, the odds are still very low, especially with a stable family environment. None of us inherited it and can safely say that now that we're all in our 40s. I am very happy to have been adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

PP here and that’s a really huge societal question in response to my personal anecdote. Personally as a third child myself I would have liked to have three, but between age, money, aforementioned spacing desires which are because of money, and some issues we had already identified with our second we chose to stop at two.

[Anonymous]

Can someone who has actually studied this explain why we would give two sh*ts about the birth rate when the world population is exponentially growing and overpopulation is likely a bigger concern? Shouldn't we be wanting to decrease the birth rate??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

I don’t think anyone denies it’s an issue. It’s the exploitation by people who want to force women to have more babies.

My only point is that people should learn about so they are less likely to be exploited based on lack of information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

No, this doesn’t work either. Euro countries have shown financial inducements don’t really move the needle.

The single best method to boost birth rates (it will never happen but it’s true) is banning women from going to school after 10th grade.

Keep abortion, keep access to birth control etc etc, financial inducements like you suggest help slightly at the margins but by far the biggest lever is how long girls are sitting their butts in a classroom

Now I don’t happen to agree with that “solution” but that’s really what really drives firtikitubrate

Or how about teaching men to be equal partners? Teaching men how to be a good dad and actually participate in household chores and caring for others?

You don't seem to appreciate how many men disappear after raping or otherwise impregnating women and girls. There is no man there to be an equal partner, or even an unequal partner for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Research the declining population in Japan as a case study. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/japans-declining-population-clearly-problem-whats-the-solution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has actually studied this explain why we would give two sh*ts about the birth rate when the world population is exponentially growing and overpopulation is likely a bigger concern? Shouldn't we be wanting to decrease the birth rate??

I’m wary of billionaires that have made this an issue ( Musk). This planet has finite resources and we shouldn’t place market share and available workers ahead of the health of the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Research the declining population in Japan as a case study. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/japans-declining-population-clearly-problem-whats-the-solution

It's next to impossible to emigrate to Japan. That's why they're aging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?



That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?


You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.


That sounds like a societal failure. You don’t steal a woman’s child because she can’t feed it- you give her the d*mn food, you give her the d*mm treatment, and you make sure every one likes her gets fully educated.

The big one is an addicted or mentally ill mother. If a women just needs food and support financially, that is one thing. Addiction and mental health issues can only be solved with the will of the person who is afflicted. Many times people are not on board to solve these issues, even if they have a child. They will often neglect the child due to those issues. Ask me how I know. It's heartbreaking.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

I am adopted because of a birth mother wirh paranoid schizophrenia. Her mom illness was not adequately managed sufficient to raise children and I can say that with certainty because I had an open adoption and still know her.

In my state, I (my birth parents) were given genetic medical history for both parents and it was known to me along with known to my birth siblings who were adopted to a separate family. Included info about relatives with diabetes and other medical conditions that could be inherited. But this may vary by state and what's available, known.

Of note, while schizophrenia can be hereditary with highest risk to an immediate descendent, but also, the odds are still very low, especially with a stable family environment. None of us inherited it and can safely say that now that we're all in our 40s. I am very happy to have been adopted.

There is a genetic component to the illness. A study of identical twins found that in 50% of cases both twins got paranoid schizophrenia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Only to create workers to support all the old people. Otherwise there is no reason, and in fact the earth’s population has exploded so much in the past century that it is not sustainable.

They are talking about birthrate for people with white skin. There are plenty of immigrants who are happy to take care of old white people in the US and europe, but the xenophobia makes this very difficult to execute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who has actually studied this explain why we would give two sh*ts about the birth rate when the world population is exponentially growing and overpopulation is likely a bigger concern? Shouldn't we be wanting to decrease the birth rate??

Do you care about the economy? It all comes down to economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Only to create workers to support all the old people. Otherwise there is no reason, and in fact the earth’s population has exploded so much in the past century that it is not sustainable.

They are talking about birthrate for people with white skin. There are plenty of immigrants who are happy to take care of old white people in the US and europe, but the xenophobia makes this very difficult to execute.

Sorry, no immigrant birth rates have declined as well.